Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It doesn't matter - because it doesn't eliminate his right to not be harmed.

He put himself into a situation where he could be harmed. How can you not understand that? He used free will to go into an area where protests had already turned violent, and freely bragged that he was there to protect property, carrying a semi-automatic rifle. That is like the classic example of making bad choices if you are trying to exercise your right to not be harmed. He took the absolute opposite action and put himself in harms way. #### his right to not be harmed, he chose to go completely against the first principle of self defense - be aware of the environment and don't put yourself in harms way. If he was concerned about his right to not be harmed, he would have made the choice to stay home and not act out his police fantasy.



I imagine you're a guy that loves to walk into a bar and pick the biggest and baddest looking mother in the joint, and then tell him his girl friend is ugly and you just went backdoor with his mother. Then after he beats the ever loving crap out of you, you cry foul and claim he infringed upon your "right to not be harmed." Sometimes when you make bad decisions, bad things happen, whether you think they're going to happen, or want them to happen other ways, they just happen. And you freely decided to put yourself there.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

#### his right to not be harmed,

Well, at least you own it.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

He took the absolute opposite action and put himself in harms way. #### his right to not be harmed, he chose to go completely against the first principle of self defense

Do we apply the same standard to the mentally unwell person who was yelling at armed men to shoot him while engaging violently?

Or the two men who heard gun shots and ran towards the "active shooter"?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Wrong.

GG said in his cross examination that the reason he chased KR was because he was worried about KRs safety. He believed that the skateboard he was being attacked with could cause serious head trauma.

No, Grosskreutz said exactly that under oath. He also said he originally pursued Rittenhouse because he was worried about his safety. Which is entirely believable, given that his mindset and interpretation of the situation would have completely changed to an active shooter situation as soon as he saw Huber shot right in front of him.

I assume you believe both of those things can be true, right? Or is there one you believe, and one you don't?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Do we apply the same standard to the mentally unwell person who was yelling at armed men to shoot him while engaging violently?

Or the two men who heard gun shots and ran towards the "active shooter"?

Yes, we do. That is not at odds here. Anyone who participates in these things once they get out of control is looking for trouble. But someone brought a means to kill someone. An AR-15 is a weapon designed to kill. That is what it was designed for. It is not a platform used for personal defense, even though it is a very popular selling gun and many who buy it claim as such. So showing up at a protest with a skateboard can be viewed multiple ways. Showing up with a loaded AR-15? Kind of obvious.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, Grosskreutz said exactly that under oath. He also said he originally pursued Rittenhouse because he was worried about his safety. Which is entirely believable, given that his mindset and interpretation of the situation would have completely changed to an active shooter situation as soon as he saw Huber shot right in front of him.

I assume you believe both of those things can be true, right? Or is there one you believe, and one you don't?

I don't believe much of anything Grosskreutz said. The value in his testimony was the confirmation that a mob was chasing Kyle (including him), and that Kyle didn't shoot him until he pointed his gun at Kyle's head.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

An AR-15 is a weapon designed to kill. That is what it was designed for. It is not a platform used for personal defense

Kyle used it very effectively for personal defense.

[DownInFlames]

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

No, just someone who understands how to deal with threatening situations I guess. I can't help it if you guys are dense and don't realize the last thing you want to do is take on an individual with any weapon, and the best course of action is to run, hide, then fight. If pushed into a situation where you have to fight, then make it on your terms.

I believe you're applying your hero-complex hypothetical to a situation where we can watch what actually happened.

Rittenhouse was running away. Was being swarmed by a crowd yelling to "beat his ass". He was punched in the head. Unfortunately for everyone he tripped (or maybe lost balance due to the earlier hit to the head 2 seconds prior). A person tries to jump kick him, another wails him with a skateboard and a third pulls a gun out on him. All within a matter of seconds. It's not a hypothetical situation where he could have hid behind a trash can, he was on the ground being attacked.

I mean I wanted to villainize him because of his actions after the incident where he was throwing up his racist signs with his racist buddies and previous comments about wanting to shoot looters and hoped he was found guilty. But when you look at his actions that night, as stupid as he was for going and going with a gun, he was the one trying to run away each time.

He got pepper sprayed, he didn't shoot because he recognized it as non-lethal. He saw a protestor injured and offered medical help. He was by all accounts "ambushed" by Rossenbaum who had already threaten to kill him earlier that night and he ran away from him until Rossenbaum caught up. He then tried to run away from a murderous crowd who quite literally were trying to stomp on his head when he fired at his attackers. I don't know, stupid for being there, easy to see why he got off.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Pretty good summary, actually.

"The guy was out there trying to do some good with an AR-15, and to say he had any responsibility whatsoever is victim blaming" isn't an argument being made in good faith.

We can probably wrap it up.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Rittenhouse walked into a dangerous situation. His choice.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Rittenhouse walked into a dangerous situation. His choice.

Good thing he brought protection then.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I don't believe much of anything Grosskreutz said. The value in his testimony was the confirmation that a mob was chasing Kyle (including him), and that Kyle didn't shoot him until he pointed his gun at Kyle's head.

So he wasn’t concerned for Kyle’s safety and he didn’t believe the skateboard could cause serious head trauma?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So he wasn’t concerned for Kyle’s safety and he didn’t believe the skateboard could cause serious head trauma?

I don't believe him when he said that. I just pointed out that thats what he told the defense his motivation was.

He knew that admitting he was participating with a violent mob that was chasing KR down wouldnt be good for his lawsuit.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I don't believe him when he said that. I just pointed out that thats what he told the defense his motivation was.

He knew that admitting he was participating with a violent mob that was chasing KR down wouldnt be good for his lawsuit.

Ok, so when he said he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter, that could be true because you don’t believe the quote about worrying for Kyle’s safety, correct?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok, so when he said he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter, that could be true because you don’t believe the quote about worrying for Kyle’s safety, correct?

I don't believe GG thought either was true.

That is, I don't think GG was concerned about KR's safety, and I don't think GG thought that KR was an "active shooter".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I don't believe GG thought either was true.

That is, I don't think GG was concerned about KR's safety, and I don't think GG thought that KR was an "active shooter".

You don’t think someone who saw a person shoot another person to death right in front of him thought the trigger man was an “active shooter”?

The agreed-upon definition of active shooter by US government agencies (including the White House, US Department of Justice, FBI, US Department of Education, US Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency) is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.

I mean… Rittenhouse shot someone right in front of Grosskreutz, and you can hear on video people saying “shooter” and “that guy killed someone.” Those are pretty basic facts. So, what did Grosskreutz think, then?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I don't believe GG thought either was true.

That is, I don't think GG was concerned about KR's safety, and I don't think GG thought that KR was an "active shooter".

Sorry, but Rittenhouse looks like he is about to start stalking the halls of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High and picking off students. I don’t see the difference.

[Doctorfever]

Ok. I haven’t been following the trial, but have tried to keep up reading this thread. So Kyle R. says he went to the riot to try and protect property. Did he actually protect any property?

All the talk about him taking a gun there, putting himself in danger, how is that different from the actual people rioting? Did they not put themselves in danger? And all the other people with guns?

Why are we picking on the guy who actually wanted the riots to stop?

[FunkMasterFlame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You don’t think someone who saw a person shoot another person to death right in front of him thought the trigger man was an “active shooter”?


I mean… Rittenhouse shot someone right in front of Grosskreutz, and you can hear on video people saying “shooter” and “that guy killed someone.” Those are pretty basic facts. So, what did Grosskreutz think, then?

Grosskreutz did not witness Kyle shooting someone to death right in from of him. Their first interaction was sometime after the 1st shooting when Kyle was halfway down the street running towards the police lines. Gaige even asks Kyle what he did and Kyle told him in passing he shot someone and was going to the police. Despite that fleeting interaction, it only took Gaige about 10 seconds of listening to the bloodthirsty mob to decide he was going to try to shoot Kyle and caught a bullet of his own as a result.

It was all caught on Grosskreut's POV livestream.